Is this a good thing? Doesn't this just create a vacuum to be filled with Islamic Fascists only concerned with invading Israel? I'm guessing, 10-15 years from now, if Egyptian government is replaced with a Muslim leader, we will see another conflict [Egypt] with Israel. The guy might have been a little corrupt with money, and he might have oppressed political rivals to remain in power, but he worked diligently for peace in the Middle East, wiped out their debt and, for the last ten years, the Egyptian economy has been rising. I think this is kind of dark moment in their history, but what do you think?

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

I cannot speak for those of you not in the US, but my opinion on Mubarak resigning and the US taking an interest in this:

The people of Egypt have spoken, and they want a new leader and/or type of government. And if that's what they truly want, then that's what they should receive. In the long run, will it be a good thing? Nobody knows. They could end up with some muslim islamic jihadist who wants nothing more than to see the whole world burn. They could end up with a democracy like the US/Canada/Mexico/etc. We'll never know until their new government is installed. Right now there's an equal chance of them getting someone good or bad.

As far as the US interest in this: Not our country. Not our citizens, either. We shouldn't take an active role in "helping" them determine the type of government they want. They elected Mubarak, and now they want him gone. It falls on the shoulders of the Egyptian citizens to figure this one out. By going over there and installing the type of government the US wants installed, all that's going to come of this is that more countries in the middle east will hate us. It isn't our problem, even if it does affect those who we are allied with in that area of the world.

Furthermore, I doubt the resignation is going to stick. He announced yesterday that he was going to resign, only to come out today and say that he never made those comments. And the last I heard on the news was that he was going to delegate the day-to-day stuff to the VP, but was going to retain the power he has. Which means that he could revoke the VP's powers and just continue to rule as he wants to. Until someone new is elected and Mubarak is no longer truly in power, I won't believe it.

--------------------

QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM)

We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.

I agree with most of what was said in the two posts above. But I think this is going too fast, Mubarak should have resigned late this summer instead, but unfortunately the people had no more patience. There's no one ready to take his place, except for the military.

I just hope they don't end up with some variant of Hamas as government. They have no traditions with democracy and it's not impossible that they elect some islamists leaders.

They could end up with some muslim islamic jihadist who wants nothing more than to see the whole world burn. They could end up with a democracy like the US/Canada/Mexico/etc. We'll never know until their new government is installed. Right now there's an equal chance of them getting someone good or bad.

No there's not.

The largest opposition party is the Muslim Brotherhood, who - by the way - are Islamic fundamentalists.

Finding it slightly ironic that it is now highly fashionable to support democracy in Egypt, yet when the only free democracy in the region (Israel) falls under attack by a totalitarian, fascist ideology the chattering classes scream kill, steal, and destroy.

As for Mubarak, FDR once said of a Latin American dictator that "he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard." This applies here.

I generally don't support dictators (of course), but in some cases a dictator isn't so bad. In the case with Egypt and Mubarak, it stabilized the region because he respected Israel and was an ally to USA. And Egypt was part of the Gaza blocade as well. Who knows what the next regime will be like. The islamic brotherhood might be moderate, but islamists are islamists.

But maybe the generals will enjoy the power too much to step down later. It's a bit naive to trust them completely.

I generally don't support dictators (of course), but in some cases a dictator isn't so bad. In the case with Egypt and Mubarak, it stabilized the region because he respected Israel and was an ally to USA. And Egypt was part of the Gaza blocade as well. Who knows what the next regime will be like. The islamic brotherhood might be moderate, but islamists are islamists.

But maybe the generals will enjoy the power too much to step down later. It's a bit naive to trust them completely.

Again, the bolded part is why I have an issue with this. Why is it that if America likes someone, they have to stay in power, but if the USA hates someone (see Hussein, Sadam) they have to go? Why is that? And answer me this: why is it that if some country other than the USA has a government we don't like it has to change, but if they have a government that we like and nobody else does it has to stay the same? Why can't all these other countries go through what we went through in our infancy?

Yes, I know we had help in the beginning. But only from a military standpoint. We were still responsible for setting up our own government, and determining our own laws, and responding to the citizens of our country. After we got up and running and had our own military, everybody else let us do our thing. And don't tell me that we do the same thing. If you do, I'll refer you to Iraq. Bush stated "Major conflict in Iraq has ended" back in 2003, but we STILL have troops over there. Afghanistan has their own government now, and we STILL have troops over there. Tell me: how many countries have their troops stationed in the US? That's right - none. So why do we have to have our troops all stationed everywhere else in the world?

--------------------

QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM)

We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.

Mubarek was an American and Israeli stooge who's greatest contribution to 'stability' in the region was being Israel's bitch and building a wall to contain Gaza residents so they can't escape the constant Israeli slaughter(in 'self defense' of course...[/retardation]).

Glad to see that others in the region are taking notice now as well and maybe there will be a trend of revolution against American backed dictators across the Mid East in the near future just as is happening in South America.

South America is rising up, the Mid East has been for a while but it continues to be a hard struggle, and the CIA is apparently worried that Europeans aren't buying their propaganda anymore.

Obama can build massive military bases in South America to intimidate the people and he and Israel can invade Iran if they want to and they amp up the 'war of terror' propaganda to try to scaremonger the people into supporting them but it won't stop the trend.

I just hope the Egyptian people are smart enough not to allow another American stooge to become the successor to Mubarek.

It's 'liberal nonsense' to say that Egypt(and every other nation) should have a government that serves the Egyptian people and their interests rather than the American, Israeli, British, etc. governments?

It's 'liberal nonsense' to say that Egypt(and every other nation) should have a government that serves the Egyptian people and their interests rather than the American, Israeli, British, etc. governments?

Sad to see such a backward response.

No, its not, but that's not what you said. Also, it's not in your best interest want to go to war with Israel. Your would loose and that is just a fact.

Bảo Đại was a French puppet, was a capitalist and believed in a free and independent Vietnam. Diệm was corrupt, that you can't argue. But Bảo Đại couldn't, or wouldn't take back the country and it was lost to communist forces. However, Diệm was powerful and we might have lost altogether had we not assassinated him. Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-Sen are considered the greatest leaders China has ever known. But Chiang Kai-shek was not a leader, he was a warlord and general. He and the American forces would beat down Mao Ze Dong, only to have Communism take over five years after WW2 when Stilwell left. Mao was the Political side and unfortunately galvanized the Chinese people. Syngman Rhee was brutal, but a brutal president is what South Korea needed at the time. They needed someone with the grit to pull them through the Korean War. Syngman Rhee was what divided the oppressed and impoverished North from the gleaming, progressive, world leader in electronics of the South. Vietnam is mostly starving and a backwater today because of Communism. Syngman Rhee made the hard choices others refused to so that his people didn't completely share the same fate. He seems to be fairly similar to Mubarak. Time magazine once said Park Chung-hee was one of the top asians in the world. He industrialized South Korea and laid the foundation for what it would become. Park Chung-hee is exactly what you wanted, as he asked the Americans not to interfere with his overthrow of the government. And we did just that. We let them decide what happened next. Because of that, guys like Chun Doo-hwan were able to take power and do a lot of bad things. Again, we just watched, because that was there will. We stood on the border and made sure no Communism leaked in, but never fired a shot. Anything bad they did was on their own hands. Aside from humanity aid, we tend to stay away from politics in Africa. Idi Amin Dada may have had the British popular vote to start, but in the end he was just another Soviet puppet. He had been hollowed out by the Russians and replaced internally with Communism. Francisco Franco, as you may already have guessed by now, was a Communist. Spain was in need of a leader and a Marxist General is what they got. Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco started out as an answer to long running problems in Brazil and when your that close to missile range you tend to grab anyone who is anti-Communist. So he lied. That can't really be out fault; the guy was supposed to do the right thing and didn't. We didn't have a crystal ball then and we don't know. Vinicio Cerezo is the same thing. He was fighting a guerilla war with the Soviets in Guatemala. But when his glaring faults couldn't be ignored, we dropped him. And that's the thing here, like Idi, the Russians never seem to drop an ally, no matter how bat shit crazy they get. Roberto Suazo Córdova wasn't a dictator, he was just inept.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

When you roll a dice, you're bound to get your chosen number. In the case of instating dictators and regimes we have the same logic. I'm not arguing that some of our dictators might have done good things or done necessary things but with the example I was trying to emphasize that we are interfering far too much with the world powers. Can you imagine if some other country even if it's a superpower superceded the democracy of the US and instated a leader.

For every one that might be justifiable, there will always be a Trujillo and not all of our gambles can be justified :/